首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Archives of Emergency Medicine >Suspected myocardial infarction and left bundle branch block: electrocardiographic indicators of acute ischaemia.
【2h】

Suspected myocardial infarction and left bundle branch block: electrocardiographic indicators of acute ischaemia.

机译:疑似心肌梗塞和左束支传导阻滞:急性缺血的心电图指标。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To examine the use of thrombolytic treatment in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). To evaluate electrocardiographic criteria for the identification of AMI in the presence of LBBB, and examine the implications of using these criteria in the clinical setting. METHODS: A retrospective study over two years, based in two Sheffield teaching hospitals. Patients presenting with LBBB and suspected AMI were studied by analysis of an AMI database. The proportion of patients with LBBB and AMI receiving thrombolysis, and the in-hospital delay before the start of treatment, were used as indicators of current performance. Three predictive criteria were applied to the electrocardiograms (ECGs) retrospectively, and their ability to identify acute ischaemic change assessed. The implications of using the predictive criteria in the clinical setting were explored. RESULT: Twenty three per cent (5/22) of patients with LBBB and AMI did not receive thrombolysis, in the absence of documented contraindications. The mean in-hospital treatment delay for thrombolysed patients was 154 minutes. Forty eight per cent (16/33) of those thrombolysed did not have a final clinical diagnosis of AMI. In the majority of cases (8/12), the decision not to administer thrombolysis was based on a single ECG recording. The presence of any of the predictive electrocardiographic criteria was associated with a diagnosis of AMI, with a sensitivity of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.95), specificity 1, positive predictive value 1, and negative predictive value 0.79. The kappa scores between four independent observers showed either substantial or near perfect agreement. CONCLUSION: Currently, thrombolytic treatment is under-utilised in patients with LBBB and AMI, and those who are thrombolysed endure lengthy delays before treatment. Patients with any of the predictive criteria should be thrombolysed immediately. When the diagnosis is in doubt, serial ECGs may demonstrate evolving ischaemic change.
机译:目的:探讨溶栓治疗在疑似急性心肌梗死(AMI)和左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)患者中的应用。要评估心电图标准,以在存在LBBB的情况下识别AMI,并检查在临床环境中使用这些标准的含义。方法:回顾性研究了两年,设在谢菲尔德的两家教学医院。通过分析AMI数据库研究了LBBB和可疑AMI的患者。 LBBB和AMI患者接受溶栓治疗的比例以及开始治疗前的住院延迟被用作当前表现的指标。回顾性地将三个预测标准应用于心电图(ECG),并评估其识别急性缺血性改变的能力。探索了在临床环境中使用预测标准的意义。结果:在没有记录的禁忌症的情况下,有23%(5/22)的LBBB和AMI患者未接受溶栓治疗。溶栓患者的平均住院治疗延迟为154分钟。溶栓患者中有百分之四十八(16/33)没有对AMI的最终临床诊断。在大多数情况下(8/12),不进行溶栓治疗的决定是基于单个ECG记录。心电图预测标准的存在与AMI的诊断有关,灵敏度为0.79(95%置信区间0.63至0.95),特异性1,阳性预测值1和阴性预测值0.79。四个独立观察者之间的卡伯分数基本一致或接近完美。结论:目前,LBBB和AMI患者的溶栓治疗未得到充分利用,溶栓的患者在治疗前经历了长时间的延迟。符合任何预测标准的患者应立即进行血栓溶解。当诊断不确定时,连续心电图可能显示出不断发展的缺血性改变。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号